Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manar Maged

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Smerge to craniopagus parasiticus. The condition is notable, but the name of the child is not necessary in order to document that. Keep arguments are not invalidated by this; the coverage is of an example of the condition not as a biography of the child. Guy (Help!) 17:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manar Maged

edit

This article is about a victim of circumstance... there is no need for Wikipedia to be the tabloid in this case. If there is anything truly notable here, merge it into Cojoined twins and leave a redirect. Doc's speedy was proper, and the restore was, in my view, not. ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The condition is notable, not the individual. I think the most constructive strategy would be to relocate this case story to TwinStuff (also a wiki), which maintains a list of hundreds of conjoined twins. Una Smith 14:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per my nom. ++Lar: t/c 11:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is 'tabloid' about this article? It's written in a perfectly proper fashion and it's got multiple sources. The facts of this case are unusual and notable from a medical point of view and there was plenty of publicity surrounding the events at the time so this article is hardly an invasion of privacy. I don't see the rationale for deletion and none is actually given by the nominator. Nick mallory 11:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reason given by me? The very nature of the article is tabloidish and sensationalistic... see WP:NOT, policy is changing. Merge it and leave a redirect, at best. In 100 years will this info be needed? ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can you even guess whats important in 100 years, let alone a year from now? Thats called crystalballing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Q. For the mergists. Would a merge improve the target?--Docg 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC
"The case illustrates that there is a continuum from craniopagus parasiticus to the phenomenon of the conjoined twin." - so probably yes, in this case. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, this wasn't just a rare medical condition, it was also a rare and notable surgical procedure. MoodyGroove 19:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to conjoined twin. —Phil | Talk 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Conjoined twins. The argument for deletion seems to be not that notibility fails due to a lack of multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage, but that editors find the subject distasteful and "tabloidish." Wikipedia is not censored. The medical condition is clearly a proper subject for an encyclopedia and rare medical conditions are in fact discussed in well known paper encyclopedias. This would improve the article on the medical condition, by showing the state of the art in surgical attempts to separate the conjoined twins. Edison 13:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. Remove actual names where appropriate and feasible (and perhaps delete all if not feasible). I'm concerned that we're not really delineating Wikipedia from a tabloid newspaper archive or a freakshow. It's neither. --Tony Sidaway 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to craniopagus parasiticus, removing anything prurient along the way. Nothing to do with censorship, eberything to do with drawing a distinction between tabloid freakshows and biograpies. The responsible way to treat this is to discuss it as an example of the condition, not to pretend that we have a biography (which we don't). Guy (Help!) 14:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eliminate in some fashion - clear BLP violation. People who do not see this should go and reread BLP several times until they understand the policy. Phil Sandifer 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read the actual article just once. She is dead.
The only living person mentioned is the fraternal twin Noora. Are you saying that BLP applies to Noora because it sure can't apply to Manar! Thus deleting the name Noora would stop the violation. violet/riga (t) 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should take your own advice. This is not a BLP violation, the references are there, it is critical of noone and undue weight is only placed on the subject of the conjoined twin because that is the only notable thing about her. (hence it shouldnt be a biographical article, but an example in a higher article) ViridaeTalk 02:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - She (they) were the subject of major media coverage, including television appearances, ergo (they) were notable, despite for all the wrong reasons. The refs do need some work, however. Changed my recommendation to Merge to craniopagus parasiticus with a redirect per WP:BLP. Mmoyer 16:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to craniopagus parasiticus per Guy, some of the information/refs can usefully improve that article. There's certainly no reason to have a separate article, though. EliminatorJR Talk 15:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, prefer merge The case appears medically significant and the article focuses on the medical aspects of the case, rather than the sensationalism. Even though it was mentioned on Scopes, it does not appear to be the subject of an abusive internet meme. Although WP should respect the privacy concerns of non-public persons (which I think is what the invocation of WP:BLP above refers to), where the individuals involved do not appear to be concerned about keeping the subject of the story out of the public eye, privacy issues become less of a concern with respect to the information that the individuals are themselves making public. If I had a child with a rare birth defect I doubt I would take the child on Oprah, but the parents made the choice to do so. There is no need for WP to be more concerned about the privacy of a subject than the subject herself (or in this case her parents) is. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly opposed to a merge. The arguments above are sound, this meets all relevant policies and guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Conjoined twin as per Mackensen and Tangotango. The article in question isn't a biography, but instead a medical history. FCYTravis 17:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to conjoined twin. This article isn't very valuable by itself, but parts of it could make a good addition to another article. --Carnildo 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The BBC is not "tabloid". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing the point. Prurient coverage is different from scholarly coverage or coverage which seeks to document an issue dispassionately. The BBC are just as capable of being sensationalist as anyone else. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "sensationalist" is subjective. I base my opinions on the record of the medium. The BBC isn't being sensationalist in its coverage at all, and doesn't have a history of being sensationalist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, applicable content already merged. This is a case study, not a biography. The article for the specific condition (craniopagus parasiticus) was poor, little more than a mounting platform for links to this article and the one below it on AFD. I have taken the liberty of redirecting that article to the broader parasitic twin (which was also dismal), rewriting the content, and referencing the material. I see no compelling reason to delete as opposed to redirecting; these names are in case literature and media coverage, and BLP concerns (such as future impact on Google placement) are unfortunately not applicable in either case. Serpent's Choice 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a substantial amount of non-trivial third party coverage of this subject such that it meets and exceeds both WP:A and WP:BLP standards, and I say this as someone who spends a good portion of my time upholding such policies. Burntsauce 23:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (if not fully completed) This is basically a fork, a notable example that is very useful in an appropriate higher article but barely notable enough on its own to warrant an article. Examples such as this are very useful to casual readers of the higher articles but not very useful randomly searching the encyclopaedia. It has no hope of ever being featured, its only hope of ever being featured content if it is merged. So from the point of view of not having a biographical article on every single person who has done something remarkable once and from the point of view of improving the net quality of our articles I think a merge is appropriate. ViridaeTalk 02:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep had TV show dedicated to her story, that certainly passes our bar for notability. I do not see any BLP concern here as content is well referenced.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't see the point of a redirect or a merge; I seriously doubt any Wikipedia readers are going to be searching for this person, and any relevant content is already in the appropriate articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You never know what people are going to search for, though. The name is out there. Someone might see it in another source, and come here expecting more info. Zagalejo 17:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep victim of circumstances? That applies to most notable people. Go ahead an delete the article to G.W.Bush, because he became president because he was a victim of circumstances, respectively born into a high profile ex-Presidential family. Genius also comes in part with birth too. Delete the article about Mozart, because this poor guy was also a victim of circumstances. tsts. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, being afflicted with a medical condition this rare is notable (only 10 recorded cases). First operation of its kind in the Middle East. The article is well sourced and would be of interest to anyone doing research on conjoined twins. MoodyGroove 11:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove Merge to craniopagus parasiticus with redirect sounds reasonable, although comments the refer to this as a freak show or like a tabloid are completely off base. Conjoined twins are a perfectly legitimate subject for an encycolopedia. As for WP:BLP is it privacy issue? I'm all for the presumption of privacy, but the medical aspects of this case are central to the subject's notability and the case is well documented. I'm not clear on how this article harms anyone. MoodyGroove 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]
  • Delete This and other relevant cases can be noted in Parasitic twin while being sensitive to the family and the impact of being listed in a top-ten web site in perpetuity. Do not maintain as a redirect. Thatcher131 14:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not maintain as a redirect? I can imagine someone using this name as a search term. Suppose they had seen the name over at snopes, and came here expecting more info? Zagalejo 17:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manar_Maged&oldid=1266221774"